Restoration vs Preservation

[Kirk Turner]

Thanks for the welcome to the board

I hope I'm not rehashing an old topic here. I've searched thru the archives to see if this topic has been discussed and I couldn't find much if anything on this topic. (to the moderator: how about more instructions on how to search?) Hope I'm not opening a can of worms.

We all love Corvettes or we wouldn't be here. I've forgotten what restoration book I read this in but the author stated that we were custodians of our cars; yes, we did own them, but we wouldn't forever. Someone else will eventually have custodianship - either because of our health/death, financial situations, or life style changes.

I've got a 1967 L71, silver/black, coupe from Fl I'm restoring. It came with flared quarter/fenders, "quad" exhaust - rear and side pipes (both functioning), and a faded, but wild paint job: Purple over silver with an over-layed lace pattern on the hood and rear clip. It had "SS 427" badges on the hood and six brake lights. I bet it was a real beauty when it came out of the shop; I really would have liked to seen with its new repaint. My plans are to restore back to the original color of silver pearl. But I'm really torn on what paint. Should I restore this car or preserve this car? Is there a difference? I think there is and I think we as an organization need to address this.

If I put this car back with a sinle stage paint (laquer or whatever else the NCRS judging staff will accept) and have the doors and hood rub at the appropriate places what have I accomplished. Yes, I might receive my Top Flight and/or Duntov, but what have I done to preserve this car? If I use laquer paint as the years pass it will 'off gas' and start to degrade, espicially if I drive and enjoy my investment. Is my car preserved? What about those rub spots? Bare fiberglass. In my garage not too bad, but out in the elements. It can't be good for it. The purist will strip and repaint as needed in a few decades. How many times can you strip fiberglass before it becomes too thin and needs some help? What will the condition of the fiberglass be 100 years from now? We won't be here but our cars will be.

Why aren't we restoring these cars with the best materials available? Why are we taking points off for using BC/CC paints or any other system that preserves the car? I have not even touched upon the drive train. Bare metal drive shafts! Lets start giving points to people who at least paint them with clear.

I would like to propose two types of Flight judging. Our tradional restored Top Flight judging and a new class 'Top Flight Preserved'. One could have his car judged as either a 'Top Flight Restored' (TFR)or a 'Top Flight Preserved' (TFP). The TFP would be have all the same requirements, except a car will have to be painted in the best available materials to accomplish a preservation. There should be no bare metal anywhere on a vehicle. I am sure there are better minds than mine that can tackle this, but I hope you understand the point I'm trying to make. The TFP award should be everybit as hard to obtain as the TFR and everybit as prestigious.

Hopefully we can start a discussion about the merits of these issues

Thanks,

Kirk Turner

[Charlie P.]

Re: Restoration vs Preservation

In terms of your particular car, I assume that if you are this concerned about paint selection in the context of the restore/preserve question, that you are going to take every element of the car back to factory original. If you're not, I think the longevity of the paint or any other component should be the last concern.

As far as "preservation" in the terms of which you speak, I think you are worrying about something that is of no true consequence. A Corvette that gets restored with top-notch original type materials and methods is going to remain in incredibly fine condition for a LONG TIME, because of those materials and methods, and the excellent care, operation, and storage conditons it will see. I see no need to take extraordinary measures in the restoration process to ensure extremely long preservation. A properly done and cared-for restoration will be enjoyed by your children's children's children, and the big meteor will probably hit before it starts to significantly degrade.

[Chuck S.]

Re: Restoration vs Preservation

Kirk, I completely agree with the referenced author regarding our being "custodians" of these cars.

It is MY OPINION that the author is referring to original, unmolested Corvettes or Corvettes restored to factory/dealer-delivered condition...that means factory paint, factory badges, factory body panels, etc. In factory original condition, and other old Corvettes that were campaigned on the racing circuits, Baldwin-Motion cars, etc, the vehicles have some well-known historical significance.

A Corvette customized by an owner's local garage or by the owner himself COULD have historical significance, but probably only as an example of what people will do to make their vehicle "different". You need not worry about preserving cars in this condition in my opinion; if the car has certain options (an original big block engine for example), it MAY be worthwhile to restore it to factory new condition.

If you determine that your car is "historically significant", then the decision to restore or not to restore should be influenced (not necessarily decided) by how much has to be done to bring the car back to its "original" condition. The main parameter is usually how much does it cost for the parts, labor, etc.

It makes no sense to spend pay $20K for the car, another $30K for parts, and do the work yourself, only to have a car worth $25K. You can rationlize that you are getting $20K-$30K worth of enjoyment out the process, but my experience is that it's not THAT much fun. Unless you keep the car for a REALLY long time, you will be giving the next owner a good part of your life and thousands of dollars beside.

Bottom line: All Corvettes are not WORTH restoring because it can't be justified financially...too much abuse has been piled on over the years. Some people don't like to hear that, but those are the facts. You can restore such a car...and the next owner will thank you for your generosity. Advice: First determine if the car is worth restoring...get the books, learn about Corvettes. Then if restoration can't be justified, drive the car and enjoy it...preservation is then not an issue.

[Tony Merendino]

Re: Restoration vs Preservation

I agree with Chuck. These cars are meant to be enjoyed and driven. If it a historically significant vehicle then preserve it as it sits or restore it to factory standards. That is part of what the NCRS is all about. It is also about restoring these cars so that they can be driven and enjoyed as they were meant to be when manufactured. Knowing how they were built,assembled and delivered helps one determine how much restoration one would like to do. It is an individual choice and no one should be criticized for their decision as it is strictly personal.

There are a whole lot of things we can do to these cars using modern technology to make them better and there are people and cars that that is right for. But if a car has BC/CC paint, a six speed transmission, leather interior where vinyl was original, heads up display, P/S, P/B,10 disc CD player, etc. is that preservation?

Where do we draw the line? The line for restoration is drawn at as the car was delivered from the factory and that is firmly where it should be. It is for purists but that is the standard that has been set.

[Charlie P.]

Re: Restoration vs Preservation

I think "preservation" in the context of Kirk's post refers to the use of non-original materials and methods to minimize or prevent deterioration of a vehicle. He gives the examples of state-of-the-art paints for the body, and the application of coatings to all bare metal parts. He proposes a separate class for cars with such treatment.

We of course tend to view preservation as the restoration or maintenance of a car to factory-original condition or to historically significant modified configuration.

Hope I am understanding his point, and I refer you to my previous response for my opinion on the subject (in short, it's a non-issue).

[Terry F.]

Re: Restoration vs Preservation

Kirk, first and formost, that is your car and do with it what you want to. I appreciate what the others have said but your car will never be original regardless of how much laqure paint you put on it. I have talked to previous owners of these cars and when some of these cars were just two years old the paint was starting to fall off back then (laqure). It was a problem with the paint and it was a problem with the surface it was being sprayed on. A bad combination.

If you think you are going to put the same laqure on your car, you are probably wrong. I am not an expert but I have talked to a lot of people that are and have been in the business forever. The laqure that can be found is not the same stuff that was used back in the early days. So what's the point. The stuff that is being sold today is a different product and has more problems with it than the original paint. Over the years they had to make it less harmfull to the people working with it. The took the lead out of it, etc. The end result is a paint that is brittle and can't hold up.

I think preservation is important. Cut into a piece of fiberglass and see how thick it is. Regardless of how you take the paint off, you will eventually grind on that glass to prepare the surface. Repaint after repaint, you grind away the original fiberglass. Eventually, you end up into more of the fiberglass strands which will be more difficult to paint over. The thinner the fiberglass the more easy it is for substances to penitrate from the underside and affect the paint regardles of how nice a job you do preping the surface. I think there is nothing wrong with the base coat clear coat system. There was a time when manufactures didn't use it simply because it was too expensive. It is a superior product by far compared to laqure.

Regards, Terry

[Chuck S.]

Re: Restoration vs Preservation

Charlie, Kirk hasn't told us enough about his "restoration" plans to really be able to understand his definitions for "restoration" and "preservation".

I can only speak from what I understand the "RESTORERS" in NCRS to mean. On that point we are in agreement...preservation of a Corvette in a customized state with no historical significance is irrelevent in my opinion...a non-issue if you like. However, some customized cars and historically significant cars will justify restoration if the owner so chooses. In their customized condition, such cars are fun to own and enjoy, but you can forget about NCRS judging.

For the record, NCRS judges do not deduct points for BC/CC paint or for coatings on bare metal paint as Kirk assumes...they deduct points for BC/CC that doesn't look like the original paint, i.e. acrylic lacquer, and they deduct points for coatings that they DETECT on bare metal parts, because no protective coatings were applied originally.

Also, a class already exists for cars that are fun, but don't judge well according to the existing NCRS standards; it's called Sportsman Class.

[Gene M.]

Incorrect.....It's called point deduction

NCRS is about restoration the way it left the factory. Not how it left the factory but little bit better. NCRS allows for "adds" that members want to do to their cars that deviates from the original, it is called deductions. These deductions are made on every single car. I don't think there was ever a Corvette going thru NCRS judging that scores perfect. Let's stop complaining about the standards that NCRS has. There is room for every car no matter how many "improvements" the owner makes. Just be prepared to eat the "improvement" points. After all improvements or modifications are not "original correct".

[Kirk Turner]

Re: Restoration vs Preservation

Terry,

This is my point exactly.

A few responsed back asked more about my car. A 67 couple L71 non power anything 4:11 rear end, side pipe. I've got the tank sticker. Restored and Top Flighted, I'm hoping it will be 75K - 90K. Is it worth restoring; I think so.

I want to use BC/CC, and I want it to fit a hell of a lot better than factory, ie no rubbing (it just shouldn't) I recently saw a 67 roadster that has laquer paint only 3 years old, been garage kept, and already is deteriorating badly. I really think the drive train should be painted or cleared to protect it. I want to preserve it as best I can and still have as an original presentation (bolt head by bolt head, screw by screw) as I can, but it will have a clear coat that will look like one. But it helps preserve it. I plan to drive it. I don't plan to drive in the rain, but I live in North Carolina we get plenty of unexpected thunder storms. I want to minimize the chances of rust forming on the drive train. We give points for the NCRS sticker, we give points for the fire extinquisher (none of which came from the factory); we need not to take off points for preservation or we need to recognize a preserved car with equal prestige.

My two cents. I've enjoyed everyones response and do take it to heart.

Thanks

Kirk

[Roy B.]

Re: Restoration vs Preservation

Sportsman Class is nothing more then a secured parking lot having no judging.

[Michael W.]

Any discussion on this topic

has to start with correctly understanding the words 'preserve' and 'restore'. They are not the same thing, and they are rarely interchangeable. To restore something means to return it to a former state. To preserve something means to keep it the way it presently exists.

You cannot restore something to a state that never originally existed. If you were to repaint a Corvette in BC/CC that has never previously been painted in BC/CC you are neither restoring nor preserving. You are modifying.

If this were the NCM(odifying)S your ideas might carry some weight.........

This topic has indeed been bantered about many times before, it's buried somewhere in the archives.

[Joe C.]

What The Hell Are You Talking About

Applying BC/CC is not the same as adding aftermarket air conditioning, 6 taillights, Hooker sidemounts, Getrage 6 speed, heads up. Get real.

As long as the BC/CC paint looks "as original", then it should be judged accordingly. Have you ever heard of "lacquerthane"? My car is VERY faithfully
restored but is BC/CC. I really don't give a rat's arse about who can "detect" this , but I am happy to drive the car in its original configuration, including 7.75:15 bicycle tires, and tar top battery.

[Terry F.]

Re: Restoration vs Preservation

I am glad you liked my responce. Put plenty of coats of clear and have fun flat sanding. Regards, Terry

[Terry F.]

Re: Any discussion on this topic

I understand what you are saying. But, based on what you are saying, there should be the same point deduction for either BC/CC vs. using todays laqure products. Neither is original. One just happens to be far superior to the other and one happens to have the same name as a product used several years ago.

In my opinion, paint should be judged on closeness to original color, look and condition. Regards, Terry

[Chuck S.]

In My Case...

Kirk, you are preachin' to the choir about modern urethane basecoat/clearcoat finishes versus present-day acrylic lacquer.

The experience you relate about the 3 year old Corvette paint job is EXACTLY, ALMOST VERBATIM the expectation that Tom Ames and DuPont paint reps have expressed at every national convention for the last several years...today's acrylic lacquer IS NOT the product that was originally applied to these cars. How can you "restore" using a product that doesn't exist anymore? There's something out there with the same name, but it's not the same material.

There is, however, a middle ground. Like I said above, the paint doesn't have to BE acrylic lacquer, it only has to LOOK like the original acrylic lacquer. NCRS has been virtually promoting the use of modern finishes over lacquer, and the techniques for making modern finishes look like lacquer, by presenting paint seminars at the nationals and some regionals for several years.

If you don't believe this, read the new "Driveline's" info on the 2004 National in Windsor; nine tech sessions, judging schools, and seminars will be offered, and of these only three will receive judging points...the paint seminar is one of these (3 judging points). It seems to me that NCRS is fairly comfortable with owners using modern finishes...IF they can make them look like original finishes.